Trash Talk

Don't Give up on Notre Dame

2011-07-22T11:59:00.003-04:00

We all know what has been happening at the University of Notre Dame ever since the Land O'Lakes Conference in 1967. On the surface Notre Dame has been all but completely secularized, welcoming such events as the Vagina Monologues and the President Obama commencement speech and the awarding of an honorary doctorate degree back in 2008. These and other warning signs from Notre Dame's leadership point to a future where Our Lady's university is no longer the flagship of all Catholic universities. In fact, many believe that it already remains Catholic in name only, and should therefore be stripped of even that.

While these accusations and fears are fairly accurate, it is important to remember that the worst thing we can do is abandon Notre Dame.

As a seminarian and a student at the University of Notre Dame, my brothers and I have been scorned, scolded and shunned because of our association with the University. This comes from wonderful Catholics, both priests and laity who have given up hope on the University of Our Lady. They have come from men and women I truly look up to. I cannot tell you how many people have asked me why I would endanger my faith and waste my time and God-given talents at such a place. I cannot tell you how many (and I would like to emphasize that these are people that I still respect and love dearly) good, solid Catholics have told me about how they now refuse to associate with anything Notre Dame; how they will no longer donate to the school or to the Congregation of Holy Cross (the religious community who founded the school); how they feel betrayed.

I can empathize with these sentiments. For I, too, have felt betrayed by some of the actions of the Notre Dame community. I will not, however, buy into the idea that abandonment is the solution to the problem.

Yes, Notre Dame is at a critical point in its history. Yes, its future as a Catholic institution may be in jeopardy as it seems to alienate itself from the Church. But I also encourage those who condemn Notre Dame without being a member of the community to not completely underestimate the quiet spirituality that exists on campus. I have seen firsthand the vibrancy of spiritual life that exists, and this gives me great hope in the school. Those outside of Notre Dame cannot see that there are many faithful, holy priests, professors and students who are not only living their faith unabashedly, but are willing to face public persecution from both sides for doing so. My spiritual life has only benefited from being a part of this community.

So why does it seem as though we are losing Notre Dame? It's because those who wish to keep Notre Dame under the umbrella of the Church are unwilling to fight to do so. Those who stand by crying and complaining as Notre Dame drifts away are the very ones that are allowing (maybe even pushing) it into the abyss of secularization.

How can Notre Dame be saved? The only answer is to increase, not decrease, one's involvement and one's prayers. The answer is to 'de-villainize' those of us who are not content with allowing the university of our Blessed Mother to be known as a "formerly" Catholic institution. It's time to get off the sidelines, put on the gloves and step into the ring, or at the very least stop standing in the way of those that choose to do so.

Do pro-choicers really have a case againt Casey Anthony?

2011-07-21T12:26:00.000-04:00

Thank you to everyone who polled in yesterday on the abortion question. It was interesting and refreshing to see that the consensus seemed to support a birth and adoption; as long as the child was given the chance to live, despite the conditions.

This is obviously an extreme situation, but one that is often cited by a portion of the pro-choice crowd who believe that abortion must be a viable option due to scenarios such as this. President Obama himself has strongly supported abortion in cases of rape.

But the situation I proposed below surprisingly did not derive directly from the abortion debate. The “hypothetical” woman in question is the one and only Casey Anthony. If you’ve been following her story on the news (it was hard not to), you’ll see parallels between the situation I posted and her own. She was a single mother who had lost her job at Universal Studios several years prior to the 2008 incidents. She claimed to have been raped by her father and had fought advances from her brother. Her boyfriend did not want Caylee around, and Caylee obviously intruded on her mother’s desired lifestyle. Although Anthony was found innocent of the murder of Caylee Anthony (her daughter) in 2008, many Americans feel are outraged at the verdict as Anthony continues to undergo public persecution from all corners of the nation.

But do the pro-choice advocates that cite the hypothetical scenario of a woman who is raped really have any grounds to criticize Anthony? Granted, the debate is much more complicated and includes the question of whether a baby in the womb is considered a human being, but the fundamental question remains the same: Did, or did Anthony not have the right to terminate her daughter’s life? In an abortion case, many would argue that she does, based on the context. But some of those very same people are quick to point the finger of condemnation at a woman who may have carried out exactly what they were supporting. So what is the difference between the Casey Anthony situation and the abortion question? Just three years. If one is to maintain that a woman facing the challenges that I proposed in my previous blog post is justified in terminating the life of an unwanted baby, then on what grounds can one condemn a woman facing those very same challenges to terminate the life of her unwanted toddler? When advocating for the death of another human being, one finds himself on a slippery slope as he loses the foundations needed to defend his own life.

Just something to think about in the midst of the multitude of controversies surrounding the abortion debate.

I’ll leave you with a great video in defense of life that my friend passed on to me. I encourage you to check it out and get involved in the discussion:

Right to Life or Right to Choose? What's YOUR opinion?

2011-07-20T09:43:00.001-04:00

There is a hypothetical scenario often cited by pro-choice advocates. It is obviously a very difficult moral decision, and difficult to answer. Here's the situation, please poll your response to the right of this post:

A young woman has no job, and is just trying to get by. She has been harassed and raped by her father. Eventually she discovers she's pregnant. Whether it was by her father or her boyfriend, she doesn't know. Nevertheless, her boyfriend is trying to convince her to get rid of the child, as it will interfere with her youthful lifestyle. She didn't intend to get pregnant for awhile. Jobless and without trustworthy support from her parents, the woman sees this is obviously not a good family situation for a child to be raised in, especially with the father so near and with her current 'party' lifestyle.

In this situation, should this woman have a right to an abortion?

A Love Song for My Girlfriend

2011-07-14T15:40:00.005-04:00

Yes, I have a girlfriend. Confused? Most people are. You should see the looks I get when I first mention it.

Priceless.

The look is usually followed by, “But…you’re a seminarian... You can’t have a girlfriend, can you?” Well, not in the same way as you would typically think of when you think about boyfriends and girlfriends. But I can assure you that my girlfriend is just as real, and just as beautiful (I would argue even more beautiful) as the next guy's significant other.

My girlfriend is the Catholic Church. Before you roll your eyes and give up on this blog post, let me explain.

Two things are occurring during the years that a young man is in the seminary: formation and discernment. The man is being trained and formed for the Catholic priesthood by living the vows a priest would live, without formally taking the vows. So I’m living (to a lesser degree) poverty, chastity and obedience. While in the seminary I am discerning whether or not I’m called to ordination, the moment when a priest is united to the Church for life, while simultaneously preparing to live the life.

Still not seeing the connection? I have a friend who has been dating this girl for a couple of years now. Because he spends most of his money on her, he doesn’t have an overwhelming amount of cash, or at least he has to monitor his spending to account for what he spends on his girlfriend (poverty); he only has eyes for her, meaning that he if he were to step out on her and fool around with another girl, he’d be in trouble (chastity), and let’s be honest, we all know who really has control in the relationship (obedience). What my friend is living right now is a small-scale version of what he will be living if he and this girl ever get married: they will live by a common purse or paycheck, they will be called to be completely faithful to each other, and they will need to be reasonably obedient to each other. Poverty, chastity, obedience. My friend is discerning whether or not he is called to marry this girl while simultaneously learning how to live as though he were going to.

Now, some people have asked me, “What about the small things in a relationship, the things that really make it fun? i.e. the late night phone calls, the hand-holding, the long and intimate walks… Obviously you can’t literally hold the hand of the Church, right?”

You might have heard of a prayer that all religious (priests, sisters, brothers, seminarians) pray every day called the Liturgy of the Hours (or Divine Office). This prayer is referred to as “the official prayer of the Church” and is compiled of psalms and other prayers. In my seminary we pray this in common every morning and night, and are even encouraged to take a break from what we are doing to pray the short prayers on our own at different times of the day. When I pick up the breviary (the book containing the prayers), it’s almost like I'm picking up the phone to call my girlfriend. I’m sure many of you have been in one of those relationships where it almost becomes just a habit to call your boyfriend/girlfriend at a certain time each day or night. It’s the same way with us, only instead of just talking to our girlfriend, we also sing to her ;).

There are many other comparisons I could draw on, but the bottom line is this: I am falling in love with the Church. While I know we are not yet married, and there’s always the chance that God calls me to a different path, I still pray that someday He calls us to be.

Until then, I’ll continue to stumble along as boyfriends do, making my mistakes as I do my best to put my whole heart into this relationship.

So this one's for my boo!

Dear Westboro Baptist Church: 'Now STOP. Hatin' is bad.'

2011-07-12T13:26:00.003-04:00

Recently Westboro Baptist Church, the nationally renowned and vocal congregation of Topeka, Kansas, has announced that it plans to picket the funeral services being held for Betty Ford this week in Grand Rapids (my hometown). Westboro’s funeral and sidewalk demonstrations have put them in the public eye as they display “large, colorful signs containing Bible words and sentiments.”

Westboro’s website, bluntly named GodHatesFags.com, describes the ‘church’ as “adhering to the teachings of the Bible, preaching against all form of sin (e.g. fornication, adultery [including divorce and remarriage], sodomy) and insist that the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace be taught and expounded publicly to all men.” At first glance, this looks like a solid and noble mission. It even makes WBC look almost, dare I say, Christian.

Read on.

“WBC engages in daily peaceful sidewalk demonstrations opposing the homosexual lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth. We display large, colorful signs containing Bible words and sentiments, including: GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL… FAGS DOOM NATIONS, THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS, FAG TROOPS, GOD BLEW UP THE TROOPS, etc.”

This message is not only ignorant, it is unabashedly anti-Christian. It’s true that we are called to “adhere to the teachings of the Bible” and even to denounce all forms of sin. But Christ’s mission was not only to take away the sin of the world, but to teach us how to spread His Word. The language WBC uses to evangelize is dangerous and inexcusable for disciples of Jesus Christ.

WBC claims to have read the entire Bible and to adhere to its teachings. Any Bible-reader would know, however, that the way in which WBC attempts to ‘engage’ (if you can call it that) the world is completely contradictory to the way Christ teaches us in scripture to engage the world. The Bible gives us beautiful accounts of Christ’s interactions with sinners. Take, for example, Christ’s meeting with the adulteress in the Gospel of John:

“Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. 2 So what do you say?"
They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. 3
4 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.
Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more." (John 8:4-12)

I can only imagine the fathers of our Church, Christ’s original twelve Apostles standing behind him holding colorful signs that read, “GOD HATES ADULTERESSES. ADULTERESSES BURN IN HELL.”

If this is the way the “Old School/Primitive Church” (as WBC calls it on their website) evangelized, I want nothing to do with it. Christ said it best Himself, “For God did not send Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17).”

It’s true that we are called to fight against the sin that exists in the world. Yes, sin is evil. War, sodomy, adultery; all are contrary to Christian teaching. Of course we must “adhere to the teachings of the Bible and preach against all forms of sin.” But what's fundamental to this mission of preaching the Gospel is the way that it is carried out. The Good News must always be preached and lived with love and humility. This fact is nonnegotiable. God does not gleam some sort of content satisfaction when He sees soldiers dying and families mourning. In fact, scripture even tell us that "God did not create death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living (Wisdom 1:13)."

God hates sinfulness, but God does not hate people. Nowhere in scripture does it claim ‘God hates fags’ or that the God of love ‘blows up troops.’ The Bible teaches us that the only way to rid the world of sin is out of love and through love, the same way it was done 2,000 years ago by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and His followers. We are not called to toss the sinner to the side, for we are all sinners in some way. Rather, the Christian is called to pick the sinner up, dust him off and encourage him to 'Go and sin no more.'

If our brothers and sisters at Westboro Baptist Church truly desire to proclaim Christ’s message and rid the world of sin, I encourage them to take a small break from agonizing mourning families at funerals and to actually give the Bible a proper read.

The Catholic Reformation?

2011-07-11T13:57:00.003-04:00

Recently I wrote an article titled “The True Beauty of Liturgy,” which was picked up and published by Crisis Magazine. My article is a humble reflection on the importance of liturgy and the current liturgical reforms being called for by the Holy See.

These reforms include a wider allowance for the celebration of the Tridentine (or Latin) Mass, and other traditional liturgical practices, such as celebrating the Eucharist ad orientem, receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue, a wider use of Gregorian chant and more room for sacred silence. But my article deals mostly with the reform which will be coming to English-speaking countries this upcoming Advent: the new Mass translation (Roman Missal, Third Edition).

The article doesn’t deal with so much with the correctness of such reforms, but rather with the beauty and necessity of liturgy as a whole, and the role liturgy plays in the ministerial outreach of the Church:

That is why Benedict’s reforms of the Roman Catholic liturgy could have an impact that reaches far beyond the Catholic Church. The Church is described in Light of the World as “giving expression to God’s message, which raises man to his highest dignity, goodness, and beauty.” This is and always has been the mission of the Church — to transform and to elevate man by creating a culture that fosters human flourishing. With his attention to liturgy, Benedict reminds us of the truth of our existence: that we are pilgrims on this earth, and we were created to live for more than the temporal.
The true beauty of liturgy is that it raises our eyes and our hearts toward Heaven, reminding us of the eschaton, the day when we pass from the temporal into the eternal. The Church exists to transform the world, to prepare it for the coming of Christ’s kingdom. Because liturgy is the primary place where this transformation occurs, Benedict is right to put it at the top of his agenda. If what we pray is what we believe, then the way we pray will determine the way we will live.

Male and Female He Created Them: Why Can't Women Be Priests?

2010-12-13T11:33:00.000-05:00

"The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine 'genius' which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness."

~Pope John Paul The Great

Let me begin by saying that it saddens me to see women feeling hurt and oppressed by the idea of a masculine priesthood. As we will see, Christ valued women very highly and rose them to a high status among His followers. It is for this reason that I write this blog today, to help those who feel hurt by this teaching to understand the Truth behind it.

Without a doubt women have been indispensable in making known the Kingdom of God. In the Bible, there are stories of women who served in the early Church and worked tirelessly for the spread of the Gospel. There is, first and foremost, Mary the virgin mother of Jesus. As the first disciple, she was Christ's first follower. The Blessed Virgin, full of grace, is a beautiful fulfillment of the Genesis promise:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" (Genesis 3:15).

Even at the beginning of humanity we see that because sin entered the world through a woman, God promised that redemption will also will enter the world through a woman.
Also coming to mind is Mary Magdalene, who St. Thomas Aquinas called the "Apostle of the Apostles (apostolorum apostola)." Aquinas wrote of Mary Magdalene: "Just as a woman had announced the words of death to the first man, so also a woman was the first to announce to the Apostles the words of life."
Pope Benedict XVI also writes in his book The Apostles,

"Nor was the female presence in the sphere of the primitive Church in any way secondary. . . Elsewhere is described 'Phoebe,'a 'deaconess of the Church at Cenchreae.' Although at that time the title had not yet acquired a specific ministerial value of a hierarchical kind, it expresses a true and proper exercise of responsibility on the part of this woman for this Christian community."

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was first to receive the redemptive love of Christ. Without her 'Fiat' ('Yes'), the Church never would have been born of Christ's side, as Eve was born of Adam's side. Women held and continue to hold a special role in God's redemptive plan of salvation.

Jesus brought women with Him when he taught. He allowed them into the Temple, which was unheard of during his time. It was Christ and the Christian Church that originally helped to raise the status of women, pushing for their individual rights in the Roman Empire (right to own property, participate in the marketplace, etc.).

We see throughout the NT that Christ rose the status of women, making them equal to men in the eyes of His Church. So why does the Church maintain a male-only priesthood? To truly understand the answer to this question, one must first understand the role of the priest within the Church.

The priesthood cannot be understood in terms of simple "functions" or as "a person who does certain things." The priesthood in the Catholic Church is meant to be an "icon of Jesus Christ" (Weigel, The Truth of Catholicism). The role of the priest is to be an alter Christus, or other Christ, and take the Church as his bride. If we see the priesthood in light of Christ, we see that because Christ was male, and the Church is called female, the priest must necessarily be male in order to relate to the Church in the same way that Christ wished to relate to Her-as the bridegroom.

The priesthood is not about power, and it is not a career. It is a vocation. Because it is a vocation, nobody (male nor female) can claim a "right" to the priesthood. The priesthood is seen as one of many ministries within the Church. As St. Paul writes:

"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work" (1 Corinthians 12:4-6).

This is the truth of the Church, which is "a community of believers, not a nation-state" (Weigel, 67).

The Catholic Church teaches that men and women were created equal, but different. There is masculinity and femininity, both containing unique gifts complementary to the other. In this way we understand that Christ, a male, weds His Church, a female. Similarly, God (who of course has no gender, but because Christ taught us to call him "Father" we will refer to him in the masculine for our purposes in this post) impregnates the Earth (feminine), as a man would impregnate a woman. But God impregnates the world with His love.

To sum it all up, the priesthood as understood in theological terms as an icon and re-presentation of Jesus Christ can only be truly fulfilled by a man, just as the beautiful gift of motherhood can only be realized by a woman. This is not due to any "power-mongering" or "Church oppression," it is simply because men and women have different roles to fulfill because they were each given different (but equal) gifts.

(To get a better grasp on the theology briefly mentioned in this post, I recommend Pope John Paul II's "On the Dignity of Women" and "Theology of the Body.")

POPE UNDERMINES CENTURIES OF CHURCH TEACHING: DECLARES EVERYTHING "OK"

2010-11-21T14:45:00.015-05:00

A few days ago, controversial excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI's next book were released by L’Osservatore Romano, despite publishing companies' unanimous agreement to hold the book until next week. As expected, the media has pounced on these excerpts and by citing them completely out of context has created confusion among Catholics and non-Catholics alike as to whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church on condoms and sexuality is beginning to change. Let me assure you, it is not.

First, we need to remember that this book is an interview, not any kind of official magisterial teaching. The Holy Father says in the book, "It goes without saying that the Pope can have private opinions that are wrong." This doesn't mean that what he said was wrong, but it does clarify that these series of interviews (the book) are the Pope's own personal opinions, and do not reflect any shift in Catholic thought on the issue of contraceptives.

Next, it is important to read the quote IN CONTEXT, to actually understand what Pope Benedict is saying. Jimmy Akin helps put it in perspective in his article:

Seewald: . . . In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

Benedict: . . . In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. [EMPHASIS ADDED] Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

When read in context, it's obvious that the Holy Father is not saying anything contrary to what the Catholic Church has always believed, that the only way to truly prevent HIV is to observe abstinence, fidelity and to regain a pure human understanding of sexuality.

The Catholic view of sexuality is that God created man and woman for a purpose, and that in achieving the true meaning of love and sex humanity can come to know He who is love itself. However what we deal with today is a distorted view of that sexuality, a love that becomes lust. A paradise that has become flawed.

Finally, note what the Pope also says in the follow-up answer. That there MAY BE individual cases where condoms may possibly be used, such as cases where impregnation is not an issue:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. [EMPHASIS ADDED]

As Janet Smith writes:

The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

So before you jump to conclusions, be sure to read for yourself what the Pope is arguing when the book comes out (Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times). I also found myself panicking when I first heard about the Pope's remarks, when an article read, "POPE DECLARES CONDOMS 'OK' AS LONG AS YOU'RE A PROSTITUTE."

Faithful Catholics! Remember what Peter said and be prepared to make your defense! Be prepared to help the secular and religious world alike understand the true meaning of the Holy Father's words...and do so with love and charity.

The Heart of Worship

2010-07-18T14:17:00.005-04:00

A few months ago I was speaking at a retreat and I asked the students, "Why do you think most teenagers don't like going to Mass?" The responses I got were typical-"It's boring." "It's long." "The priest is too old," etc. But what if these superficial aspects didn't matter? What if liturgy isn't about the personality of the priest, but rather about something far greater?

Recently my friend Ryan posted a blog criticizing many post-Vatican II fallacies prevalent in the Liturgy today, and rightly so (http://ryanayalatgif.blogspot.com/). In order to see the faults in our modern worship, we need to look back at the nature of worship, at what worship truly is. We must ask ourselves, is liturgy something we make? Or is it something in which we participate?

One of the problems we run into today is that we have the notion that liturgy is something we created. This is because post-Vatican II, committees are more responsible for a large part of liturgy planning. You have committees planning the songs, the readers, etc. This isn't a bad thing in itself, except for the fact that it creates the notion that WE create the liturgy, when actually it is something given by God in which we participate. George Weigel in his book "The Truth of Catholicism" argues that liturgy has become bureaucratized, in a sense.

Another unintended consequence of the Vatican II occurs when we have the priest face the people. With the priest facing the people, there is way too great an emphasis on the personality of the priest.

But the issue doesn't lie in the authorship of Church books or the direction the priest faces, the fundamental issue is the nature of worship itself.

Cardinal Ratzinger gives a great example of this tragedy in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy. In the Old Testament (Exodus), the worship of the golden calf is presented as simple idolatry, but Ratzinger argues that it is much more than that. Ratzinger argues that Aaron, in the book of Exodus, doesn't "intend to foster a cult...of the false gods of the heathens." Actually, the Israelites remain devoted to the same God who led them out of slavery. So where is the sin? Well, their first mistake was that they believed the saving power of God could be accurately represented by a golden calf. He writes, "The people cannot cope with the invisible, remote, and mysterious God. They want to bring him down into their own world, into what they can see and understand." Therefore, the worshiping of the golden calf is no longer about bringing ourselves up to God, but it's about dragging God down into OUR own material world. In this type of worship, man is using God and manipulating him, and in a sense, placing himself above God.

The second sin of Israel is that they made worship something closed in on itself. It becomes a self-affirming feast. "Rather than being worship of God, worship becomes a circle closed in on itself: eating, drinking and making merry." It's self-gratifying. It's no longer about God, but it's about creating our own nice little world, or giving ourselves a nice little pat on the back.

Is this true for us today? Monsignor Mannion believes that "Rather than letting the richness and depth of the rites speak for themselves, the liturgy is often buried by cultural overlays which deprive the Church's central sacrement of its power."
When the Mass becomes entertainment, therapy or therapeutic entertainment, it is not what it is meant to be. It is false worship.

Mass isn't about getting a warm fuzzy feeling, or feeling good about ourselves. Worship, TRUE WORSHIP, is about bringing ourselves up to God, to get a small taste of Heaven.
True worship, like true love, isn't about looking around at all the cute girls in the crowd (which used to be my biggest fault too!), but rather it is about looking together at the God who IS love.

"We do not worship God because it makes us feel better, or good, or entertained. We worship God because God is to be worshiped."
~George Weigel

What is Freedom?

2010-07-14T09:59:00.001-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLpGs5zlcxM

Why Catholic?

2010-07-04T11:25:00.008-04:00

Dear internet land,

Lately I've been thinking...A lot. I've been thinking about the battle raging inside my soul, and a great deal about the Catholic faith. I think it's a question we must all ask ourselves, "Why be Catholic?" After a great deal of soul-searching and pondering, I've come to the conclusion that there are SO MANY reasons why I love being Catholic. The beauty of the Mass, the Communion of Saints, the Apologetics, the uniformity, etc. While there are countless reasons to be Catholic, in this post I'm going to focus on just one of those aspects-the sacraments. Specifically, the Eucharist.

The great thing about the Sacraments is that they are stepping stones of grace that we use to get to Heaven. They are outward signs of grace given to us by God in his act of drawing all things to Him. They allow for each generation to experience Christ's saving power.

A couple weeks ago I was walking along the pier in Grand Haven with one of my Protestant friends and her Lutheran friend. We had a great discussion, agreeing and disagreeing on many points (but in a charitable way). But one topic that came up was the Eucharist. The argument from the Protestant perspective was that Christ said, "Do this in memory of me," and therefore meant for the Eucharist to be a symbol or remembrance of himself. As a Catholic, I believe differently. I believe that Christ knew exactly what he was saying when he said, "This IS my body...this IS my blood." Christ's words on the night of the last supper indicate that he truly meant to be present each time the Disciples "did this in memory of Him." I believe that Christ didn't only come for the salvation of those of his time, but for the WHOLE world (John 3:16), past, present and future. The beautiful thing about the Eucharist and other Sacraments, as I stated before, is that Christ intended for each generation to have an encounter with Him and to experience his love just as the Disciples did. God loves the world too much to only offer his son to one time period. Rather, we know by Christ's words that he came for all mankind, and intended to be with us until the end of time. These are his words, not mine.

Come and see...

I laugh a little bit when people tell me that the Catholic Church is like a cult. Because I can see where people would think that. Occasionally during the Mass I picture what it would look like just walking in on worship, being unfamiliar with the Catholic Mass. Everybody knows what to say, knows what to do, I can imagine it would be a strange sight to any innocent unfamiliar stranger. But I assure you, there is meaning behind what we do, and from the inside it is not so strange. When you understand it, there is nothing more beautiful in the world. That's why, as Catholics, we must continue to invite our brothers and sisters into worship, so that they may see for themselves. As Catholics, we are in dire need of a renewal. We have the what part down pretty well, but what we need to work on is conveying the why. We must educate ourselves, our children, and people outside the Catholic tradition who question us. Rather than getting defensive, we need to charitably defend our faith and invite them as their brothers and sisters to come and see for themselves. Once inside the Catholic faith, there is nothing more beautiful.

Therefore, to all of my brothers and sisters who do not know the Catholic Church, I say to you what Jesus says to his first disciples in the Gospel of John, "Come and see (John 1:39)." And to all of you nonpracticing and fallen-away Catholics, COME HOME! We miss you :).

Save the priesthood!

2010-06-27T13:16:00.014-04:00

"I will give you shepherds after my own heart." (Jer. 3:15)

It seems I can't go anywhere anymore without hearing at least one "priest joke." Even in my own group of friends some wiseguy has to make a "joke" referring to the tragedy of the small percentage of Catholic priests who have abused their priesthood. All of a sudden, it seems, these priests have become the "rule rather than the exception," and it is the priesthood itself that is at fault. But let's look at the situation realistically. In an article in Newsweek Magazine this past year, a study showed the following statistics:

-40-60% of Abuse takes place within families
-There was a married pediatrician in Delaware who was guilty of 471 counts of sexual abuse
-There were 290,000 cases in American public schools between 1991 and 200
-A significant amount of abuse cases in the past 20 years have come from MARRIED clergy in other denominations.

As we see here, it is not the priesthood that is flawed.

Now, I am in NO WAY condoning, endorsing, or excusing this behavior. I think it's tragic that ANY priest would fail in this way. But it's important to remember that when these priests commit these crimes, they don't fail as priests, but rather as MEN; as human beings. The times they have sinned are the times when they have not allowed God's grace to enter their hearts. Their actions aren't wrong because they're priests, they're wrong in whatever the context. And let's not forget the 99% of priests who have been good and faithful servants, ones that have followed Christ with a pure heart. These priests who baptized our children, sat in the confessionals for hours helping us obtain forgiveness for our sins. These priests who have sat bedside with our dying relatives, bringing them peace and forgiveness, bringing them the Lord. It's not fair to these priests, who have dedicated their lives to service, to condemn the entire priesthood in light of the actions of a few.

If you are dissatisfied with the priests who have committed these actions (as I am), remember where they come from. Priests come from the community. They aren't beings who are magically dropped onto the earth, but rather they are raised from childhood in our very own families and communities. If you truly want to protect our children, then GIVE THE WORLD GOOD PRIESTS. That is the most logical and effective way to solve this problem. If we maintain communities that foster and encourage spiritual growth, only then will we be able to contribute to the renewal that the Church and the priesthood desperately need. The expression "The Church begins at home" is so true. We need to raise our children in the faith tradition of excellence that has echoed from cathedral to soup kitchen throughout the centuries. If we focus on the renewal of the family, the renewal of the Church and the priesthood will follow.

If you're in high school and have friends that are discerning a call to the priesthood, don't make stupid jokes about it. Turning good men away from the priesthood or giving them a negative view of it is not going to help the situation. It will only leave us with fewer good men. If your son, relative or friends' son is discerning, support them in their discernment. Realize that, even if they are open to the priesthood, they haven't fully decided yet. Your encouragement and support is necessary to their development, either as a future priest or a future Christian layman.

Remember, the community creates the priest, and it is from his friends and family that he is called by Christ. While the vocation comes from Christ, the character comes from the community. That is why it is necessary that our faith communities and families raise our children TOGETHER and teach them from the beginning to live as stewards, and to constantly lay down their lives for one another. We must raise them in an environment that not only fosters, but encourages the pursuit of a religious vocation. This, along with an openness to God's saving grace, will renew the priesthood.

Jesus Wore Sandals!

2010-06-20T16:10:00.001-04:00

There seems to be in the world today a major rift between the Church and the modern world. It is true that the call to be Catholic (or any type of Christian, for that matter), is a call to be counter-cultural. We are called to not conform to the world, but rather to be transformed. But Christ did not completely withdraw from society. Rather, we see many instances that he actually USED culture to spread his message, to bring his Gospel "down-to-earth." We see this in his parables where he relates the Gospel to farming and business especially.

He did this without conforming or compromising his teachings.

Jesus' challenge for us as modern day disciples is to use culture as a medium between us and the world, a sort of bridge on which we carry this ancient and sacred message in a new and innovative way, without conforming ourselves to the world around us. I think it's great that Emerging Churches are filled with artists and creative people! The Church desperately needs these gifts. However, there is a danger when there is no distinction between Christians and the world. A Christian cannot say, "Look, I'm Christian but it's cool! I can cuss and do all this stuff too." Rather, a Christian must be concerned with portraying Christianity as a cool and attractive way of life.

I recently attended an interesting lecture on the Emerging Churches (Actually, my friend Nate and I registered for it thinking that it was a lecture on Christ, the Apostles, and the founding of the Christian Church...We were extremely wrong). But I was interested to learn more about this movement. While they have many positive aspects, it seems that a major issue is the fact that they are "making Christianity cool." Let's not confuse this with "making it cool to be Christian." The problem is that the first is concerned with modifying the Church to fit the culture, while the latter attempts to make culture accept the Church.

It's true, Christianity is synonymous with counter-cultural. But does that mean we cannot use the mediums available to us to spread Christ's message? As long as we have the self-discipline to not allow ourselves to fall into the ways of the culture, I think Christ would encourage us to use the resources at our disposal to spread and promote truth.